testing-testplan
Skill5 starsChanged 16 days agoMITView on GitHub
Create test plan files for developer verification and QA handoff - use after implementation is complete
In this repository50 other files it gives its agents.
- analyze-pr-commentsSkill
- architecture-analyzeSkill
- architecture-tradeoffSkill
- askSkill
- code-smellsSkill
- debugging-rocprof-sysSkill
- exploration-explore-codeSkill
- git-commitSkill
- git-gh-clientSkill
- git-prepare-pull-requestSkill
- git-pull-request-statusSkill
- gitSkill
- grill-meSkill
- library-amd-smiSkill
- notify-meSkill
- planning-architectureSkill
- planning-baseSkill
- planning-bugfixSkill
- planning-docsSkill
- planning-featureSkill
- planning-refactorSkill
- programming-cmake-best-practicesSkill
- programming-cpp-constexprSkill
- programming-cpp-design-patternsSkill
- programming-cpp-naming-rulesSkill
- programming-cpp-policy-based-diSkill
- programming-cppSkill
- programming-cpp-stl-algorithmsSkill
- programming-pythonSkill
- pr-review-interactiveSkill
- pr-reviewSkill
- radisha-create-skillSkill
- radisha-helpSkill
- radisha-improve-skillSkill
- radisha-skillsSkill
- radisha-updateSkill
- refactoring-techniquesSkill
- review-architectureSkill
- rocprofsys-buildSkill
- rocprofsys-configureSkill
- rocprofsysSkill
- static-analysisSkill
- testing-gtest-gmockSkill
- testing-pytestSkill
- therock-build-to-commitSkill
- therock-commit-in-buildSkill
- therock-first-build-with-commitSkill
- update-pr-descriptionSkill
- verify-pmc-metricsSkill
- watchSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
8 rules. About 0 are common, 8 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈8
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
0
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 8
Use this skill to create a test plan file that documents what needs to be verified for a change.
- Distinctive: line 12
After implementation is complete
- Distinctive: line 13
Before or alongside writing unit tests
- Distinctive: line 14
Before creating a Pull Request
- Distinctive: line 64
PR:: Add the PR link once created (can be empty initially)
- Distinctive: line 85
Document scenarios that require human verification:
- Distinctive: line 115
Add anything QA needs to know:
- Distinctive: line 175
Verify manually: Check off items as you verify
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Test Plan Skill
Use this skill to create a test plan file that documents what needs to be verified for a change. The test plan serves both developers (for self-verification) and QA teams (for formal testing).
<IMPORTANT>
**When to create a test plan:**
- After implementation is complete
- Before or alongside writing unit tests
- Before creating a Pull RequestWhere to save:
planning/testplan-<feature-name>.md
The test plan file should be created even if automated tests exist - it documents the full verification scope including manual checks.
</IMPORTANT>
Test Plan Template
# Test Plan: <Feature/Change Name>
## Summary
**Change:** <Brief description of what changed>
**PR:** <Link when available>
## What to Test
### Automated Tests
| Test | Description | Status |
|------|-------------|--------|
| `test_name_1` | What it verifies | ⬜ |
| `test_name_2` | What it verifies | ⬜ |
### Manual Verification
| # | Scenario | Steps | Expected Result | ✓ |
|---|----------|-------|-----------------|---|
| 1 | Happy path | 1. Do X → 2. Do Y | Z happens | ⬜ |
| 2 | Error case | 1. Invalid input | Error shown | ⬜ |
| 3 | Edge case | 1. Empty/max values | Handled gracefully | ⬜ |
## Regression Check
- [ ] <Related feature 1> still works
- [ ] <Related feature 2> still works
## Notes
<Any special setup, test data, or considerations for QA>How to Fill the Template
Summary Section
- Change: One sentence describing what was implemented or fixed
- PR: Add the PR link once created (can be empty initially)
Automated Tests
List all unit and integration tests that cover this change:
| Test | Description | Status |
|------|-------------|--------|
| `test_user_create_valid` | Creates user with valid data | ✅ |
| `test_user_create_duplicate` | Rejects duplicate username | ✅ |
| `test_user_create_invalid_email` | Validates email format | ⬜ |Status:
- ⬜ = Not written yet
- ✅ = Written and passing
- ❌ = Failing (needs fix)
Manual Verification
Document scenarios that require human verification:
| # | Scenario | Steps | Expected Result | ✓ |
|---|----------|-------|-----------------|---|
| 1 | Create user | 1. Go to /users/new → 2. Fill form → 3. Submit | User created, redirect to profile | ✅ |
| 2 | Duplicate username | 1. Try existing username → 2. Submit | Error: "Username taken" | ✅ |
| 3 | Long username | 1. Enter 100+ chars → 2. Submit | Truncated or error shown | ⬜ |Good scenarios to include:
- Happy path (normal usage)
- Error cases (invalid input, missing data)
- Edge cases (empty, maximum, special characters)
- UI/UX verification (if applicable)
Regression Check
List related features that might be affected:
## Regression Check
- [x] Login still works after user changes
- [x] User list displays correctly
- [ ] Admin can still edit usersNotes
Add anything QA needs to know:
- Required test data or accounts
- Environment setup
- Known limitations
- Areas of higher risk
Example: Complete Test Plan
# Test Plan: User Avatar Upload
## Summary
**Change:** Users can upload profile avatars (JPG, PNG, max 5MB)
**PR:** #234
## What to Test
### Automated Tests
| Test | Description | Status |
|------|-------------|--------|
| `test_avatar_upload_jpg` | Upload valid JPG | ✅ |
| `test_avatar_upload_png` | Upload valid PNG | ✅ |
| `test_avatar_upload_too_large` | Reject files > 5MB | ✅ |
| `test_avatar_upload_invalid_type` | Reject non-image files | ✅ |
| `test_avatar_resize` | Resize to 256x256 | ✅ |
### Manual Verification
| # | Scenario | Steps | Expected Result | ✓ |
|---|----------|-------|-----------------|---|
| 1 | Upload JPG | 1. Go to profile → 2. Click avatar → 3. Select JPG | Preview shown, saves on confirm | ✅ |
| 2 | Upload PNG | Same as above with PNG | Works same as JPG | ✅ |
| 3 | Large file | Upload 10MB image | Error: "File too large (max 5MB)" | ✅ |
| 4 | Wrong format | Upload PDF | Error: "Only JPG and PNG allowed" | ✅ |
| 5 | Drag and drop | Drag image onto avatar area | Preview shown | ✅ |
| 6 | Cancel upload | Start upload → click Cancel | Returns to previous avatar | ✅ |
## Regression Check
- [x] Profile page loads correctly
- [x] User settings still work
- [x] Other users can see updated avatar
## Notes
- Test with various image dimensions (square, landscape, portrait)
- Avatar should display correctly in header, profile, and comments
- Test on Chrome, Firefox, SafariWorkflow Integration
After completing implementation:
- Create test plan file:
planning/testplan-<feature>.md - Fill in automated tests: List tests you'll write or have written
- Add manual scenarios: What needs human verification
- Identify regression areas: What existing features might be affected
- Verify manually: Check off items as you verify
- Write automated tests: Invoke
testing-gtest-gmockortesting-pytest - Update status: Mark all items as verified
- Include in PR: Reference the test plan in PR description
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

